Professional Documents
Culture Documents
34 Fair Empl - Prac.Cas. 373, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,208 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appellant, v. The HENRY BECK COMPANY, Appellee
34 Fair Empl - Prac.Cas. 373, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,208 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appellant, v. The HENRY BECK COMPANY, Appellee
2d 301
Title VII.
2
I.
3
On March 28, 1980, Donna L. Black filed a charge with the Commission
claiming that the Henry Beck Company had discriminated against her on the
basis of her race when it denied her a full-time secretarial position and
discharged her from her part-time position. On May 9, 1980, before the
Commission issued a reasonable cause determination, the parties and the
Commission signed a settlement agreement. Paragraph 2c of the agreement, the
subject of this action, provided in relevant part that for six months Beck would
"reserve the next available vacancy for the position of Secretary at Henry C.
Beck's downtown location ..." for Black. In exchange for Beck's agreement,
Black agreed not to bring suit and the Commission promised it would not use
Black's "charge as the jurisdictional basis for a civil action under Section 706(f)
(1) of Title VII."
The Commission alleges in its complaint that Beck Co. breached paragraph 2c
of the settlement agreement by failing to offer Black the first available position
as secretary. The Commission's prayer for relief requests the district court to
issue injunctive orders requiring Beck Co. to comply with paragraph 2c by
offering Black the next available secretarial position. Additionally, it requests
the court to order back and front pay as damages for Beck's failure to comply
with the settlement agreement and to award the Commission costs.
II.
5
conciliation agreement from the employer within thirty days after the charge is
filed, it may bring suit in a United States District Court under Sec. 706(f)(1)
alleging an unlawful employment practice.
6
III.
9
Cooperation and voluntary compliance were selected as the preferred means for
10
achieving this goal [of assuring equality of economic opportunity]. To this end,
Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and established a
procedure whereby existing state and local equal employment opportunity agencies,
as well as the Commission, would have an opportunity to settle disputes through
conference, conciliation, and persuasion before the aggrieved party was permitted to
file a lawsuit.
11
Id.
14
The Fifth Circuit in EEOC v. Safeway Stores, 714 F.2d 567 (5th Cir.1983) did
not share the Seventh Circuit's concern with the adequacy of state
enforcements, but it agreed that federal jurisdiction may be "predicated upon
the primacy of conciliation to the Title VII statutory scheme." 714 F.2d at 572.
The court stated:
16
714 F.2d at 573 (footnote omitted). See also EEOC v. Mississippi Baptist
Hospital, 12 FEP Cases 411, 412 (S.D.Miss.1976) ("critical nature of
conciliation agreements in the enforcement of Title VII" supports exercise of
jurisdiction to enforce conciliation agreements under Sec. 706(f)(3) and 28
U.S.C. Secs. 1337 and 1343(4)).8 IV.
17
18
This latter feature is the sole factor distinguishing the PDS from conciliation
agreements, and it is this distinction that has led one circuit to conclude that
PDS agreements, as opposed to conciliation agreements, may not be enforced in
federal court.9 In EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605 (9th Cir.1982),
rehearing denied June 9, 1982 (decided before Liberty Trucking or Safeway
Stores ), the Ninth Circuit held that although the Commission could resolve
charges through a PDS, the regulation allowing such resolutions "does not
permit court involvement predicated on breach of a settlement agreement,
absent reasonable cause determination and good faith attempts at conciliation."
669 F.2d at 608. The court distinguished conciliation agreements from the PDS
by noting that the former followed investigation, determination of reasonable
cause and attempts at conciliation. The court held that Sec. 706(f)(3) was
insufficient to sustain jurisdiction because to so hold would allow the
Commission to use PDS agreements to "leapfrog" jurisdictional requirements
when Title VII violations were charged.
19
Although the court in Pierce Packing framed its holding in broad terms, the
facts of that case distinguish it from the situation now under consideration. In
Pierce Packing, Pierce settled by agreeing to post job vacancies, let women bid
on jobs, transfer seniority for women who switched jobs, and implement an
affirmative action program. Two years later, the Commission conducted a
compliance review finding continued sex discrimination. Specifically, the
review revealed sex segregated departments and job classifications with
resulting pay disparity and discriminatory layoff policy. 669 F.2d at 606. The
Commission then filed a complaint alleging that Pierce intentionally engaged in
unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII. 669 F.2d at 607. Thus,
in Pierce Packing the Commission did try to "leapfrog" the jurisdictional
prerequisites of Sec. 706(f)(1). Although on appeal in Pierce Packing, the
Commission may have argued in the alternative for specific enforcement, see
669 F.2d at 608, the complaint which was dismissed did not so limit itself.
20
V.
21
Exercising jurisdiction in this case does not allow the Commission to leapfrog
the jurisdictional prerequisites to a Sec. 706(f)(1) action alleging unfair
employment practices, nor does it undermine those prerequisites. The
requirements of investigation, determination of reasonable cause, and attempts
at conciliation serve to protect employers from frivolous or premature unfair
The backlog had grown from 2300 charges after the first year of the
Commission's operation, to 106,700 charges still pending at the end of Fiscal
Year 1975. EEOC Tenth Annual Report FY 1975 at 33
In its first year, the new system resulted in an increase in settlements and
conciliations from 14 percent of all claims under old procedures to 48 percent
under the new system. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Employment
Opportunities, House Committee on Labor and Education, 95 Cong.2d Sess.
Nov. 1978 (Testimony of Eleanor Holmes Norton) at 6. In fiscal year 1980, 46
percent of all Title VII charges were settled--13,363 by negotiated predetermination settlements (PDS) and 2,725 by other means. EEOC 15th Annual
Report FY 1980, at 36
Many other federal courts have exercised jurisdiction over enforcement suits
without discussion of the issue. See, e.g., EEOC v. Contour Chair Lounge Co.,
596 F.2d 809 (8th Cir.1979) (jurisdiction to enforce conciliation agreement
assumed under Title VII); Brito v. Zia Co., 478 F.2d 1200 (10th Cir.1973)
(damages awarded for breach of conciliation agreement without discussion of
jurisdiction); EEOC v. Labor Health Institute, 17 FEP Cases 250
(E.D.Mo.1978) (jurisdiction to enforce conciliation agreement assumed without
discussion)
EEOC v. Pierce Packing, see infra. The Ninth Circuit is the only circuit that has
addressed the question of whether PDS agreements may be enforced in federal
court
10
Because we hold the court below had jurisdiction under Sec. 706(f)(3), we
decline to address the question of whether 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1345
provide additional bases for jurisdiction
11